About your Search

20121118
20121118
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
that wasn't how the obama administration initially described it publicly. representative peter king of new york said petraeus had briefed the house intelligence committee on september 14, and he does not recall petraeus being so positive at the time that it was a terrorist attack. he thought all along that he made it clear there was terrorist involvement, king said. that was not my recollection. so senator feinstien, did petraeus contradict himself or has he contradicted the white house's version of events? >> we have a transcript of that meeting on that day. and petraeus very clearly said that it was a terrorist attack. and outlined who he thought might be involved in it. so any -- >> this is right after the attack? >> that's the day after the attack. i think there's no question about it. what has concerned me about this is really the politicization of a public statement that was put out by the entire intelligence committee, which susan rice on the 16th, who was asked to go before the people and use that statement, did. i have read every one of the five interviews she did that day. she wa
-- is not a biographer to come on, colby. >> is the obama administration guilty of a cover-up in the benghazi attack? >> i think she knew better, and if she did no better, she should not be the voice of america. . >> for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous. >> they're talking about our u.n. ambassador, who could be the president's nominee to be secretary of state. this is about her appearance on talk shows on september 16 following the september 11 attacks in benghazi. charles krauthammer, our friend here, who is off this week -- i think he is in miami traveling -- has been hammering away at this for weeks but he said that it was fun cover story in the run-up to the election. what do we know about this? .> we don't know yet maybe the intelligence committees have some notion, but we really don't know yet. they are still conducting the investigation within the state department. it seems like there were 85 things going on at once. i am not cle
'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up these questions, but does it ego to the level of needing a special prosecutor? how far do you think this will go? >> clearly there is a movement on the republican side to keep this going. as we heard senators graham and mccain want a special investigation. we have representative mike enentire, the chairman of th
the affair and effectively black mailed him to taylor his testimony about benghazi so it would suit the obama administration? >> no, i don't think so. you have to know david pert - petraeus. he would not have done that and i would suspect if somebody tried to black mail him or influence. he would come out and let everyone know. he testified before congress numerous times. i was with him in five of those times. and he will tell it straight forward based on the information he had at the time. >> we know it changes over time. >> you he's finding out more in the fog of war through about the benghazi. >> i think over time more and more information becomes. i was not the testimony. or he wouldn't have told me what he said . i have to leave it there. thank you for coming out and speakingitous. eye spirited debate. and much more on general petraeus and the probe we labeled benghazi gate. with the spark cash card from capital one, sven gets great rewards for his small business! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purche, everday! woo-hoo
altered his testimony about benghazi because members of the administration or someone knew about this affair and effectively blackmailed him to tailor his testimony about benghazi so it would suit the obama administration? >> no. i don't think so. you have t to know david petrae. he would not have done that. in fact, i would suspect that if somebody had tried to black mail him or influence him a certain way, he would do the exact opposite anden come out and let everyone know. he's testified before congress numerous times. i was with him during five of those times, and he will tell it straight forward the way it is based on the information he has at that time. we know truth changes over time a little bit as you get more information. >> so you think that's what's happening now, he's just finding out more through the fog of war about benghazi? >> well, i think over time more and more information becomes available. i wasn't at the testimony yesterday. i don't have the need to know or the clearance to know any more, and he wouldn't have told me exactly what he said anyway because he d
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)